Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2021 MinutesSPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION October19, 2021 MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDER Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . via Virtual Zoom Meeting. Per Governor Inslee's Emergency Proclamation 20-05 and 20-28 et. seq. and City of Auburn Resolution No. 5581, City of Auburn has designated meeting locations as “virtual” for all Regular, Special and Study Session Meetings of the City Council and for the Committees, Boards and Commissions of the City. a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM Comm issioners present: Chair Roland, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioner Moutzouris, Commissioner Stephens. Commissioner Mason is excused. Staff present: Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner Josh Steiner; Senior Assistant City Attorney, Doug Ruth; Senior Traffic Engineer, James Webb; Senior Transportation Planner , Cecile Malik; Administrative Assistant Jennifer Oliver. Members of the public present: Ashley Murphy; Dave B; Bob Kenworthy, Auburn School District; Cindi Blansfield, Auburn School District; Michael Swartz, Federal Way School District; Michael Farmer, Dieringer School District, David Bussard, Kent School District. b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.October 5, 2021 – Regular Meeting Minutes Vice Chair Lee moved, and Commissioner Stephens seconded to approve the minutes from the October 5, 2021, meeting as written. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 2 III. PUBLIC HEARING A. CPA21-0001 - 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Conduct public hearing on the 2021 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The 2021 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket currently includes a total of 10 proposed amendments. Five updates are annually provided capital facilities plan updates for the city and school districts located within the city. Five updates to various elements (chapters) of the Comprehensive Plan including issues relating to Transportation; Housing; Land Use, and Capital Facilities. The Policy/Text Amendments are as follows: • P/T #1 – Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #3 – Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #4 – Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #5 – City of Auburn (COA) Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #6 – Volume 3, Capital Facilities Element. • P/T #7 –Volume 5, Transportation Element • P/T #8 – Volume 2, Housing Element. • P/T #9 – Volume 1, Land Use Element City-Initiated Map Amendments (CPA21 -0002): • CPM #1 – Volume 5: Transportation Element. Several maps found throughout Volume 5 have been updated to reflect current conditions, to address formatting and combine redundant maps. Senior Planner, Josh Steiner presented to the Planning Commission a Power Point Presentation of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: beginning with the School Districts Capital Facilities Plans . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 3 P/T #1 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan Chair Roland opened the public hearing for P/T #1 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan on October 19, 2021, at 7: 11 p.m. Cindi Blansfield, Assistant Superintendent spoke on behalf of the Auburn School District and updated the Commission on the progress of the new and ongoing construction of elementary schools. Ms. Blansfield stated that the Auburn School District is in the middle of constructing their bond-approved projects. In June, Chinook Elementary moved out of their building and moved to what was known as old Olympic which is located off of K St SE. That is the interim school for the year. Lea Hill Elementary moved to new Elementary 16 as their interim site for this school year. Ms. Blansfield commented that the sites are moving quickly with construction. The new Pioneer Elementary opened up on October 6 with a ribbon cutting ceremony attended by Mayor Backus who was also an alumnus of the school. Bowman Creek and Dick Scobee Elementary Schools officially opened this time last year however, due to the pandemic, the new schools welcomed the entire school body into the buildings with a ribbon cutting ceremony. Design is well under way for Terminal Park Elementary which is the last elementary to be rebuilt. Ms. Blansfield remarked how exciting it is to have kids back in school this time of year, considering how much they were missed while online schooling took place during the height of the pandemic. Ms. Blansfield noted that while student population moving was happening this summer, 19 portable classrooms were relocated from elementaries to middle and high schools. The reason for this move was to prepare the elementary school sites for construction but also to help with the tremendous growth that’s happening in middle school and high school. The portables will accommodate growth for now. Ms. Blansfield final comments stated that the school board will soon be considering next steps in future facility planning in the Auburn School District and that the Auburn School District appreciates the great relationship that has been established with the City of Auburn. Bob Kenworthy, Auburn School District Capital Projects Assistant Director, presented the Capital Facilities Plan to the Commission. The Auburn School District has provided the city with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2021-2027. The CFP was prepared by the district staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 14, 2021 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 4 The CFP includes the following: • six–year enrollment projections • Auburn school district level of service standards • An inventory of existing facilities • The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period • District capital construction Plan • Impact fee calculations A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the district is requesting a decrease in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $3,652.19, a decrease of $2,804.12 and the fee for multiple-family dwellings is proposed to be $8,928.32, a decrease of $7,387.57. In 2019 and 2020 the King County formula resulted in very high multiple -family impact fees. Over $14,000 in 2019 and over $16,000 in 2021. The school district and the city worked together to create what was thought to be an equitable balance between the costs impact on multiple-family development and the cost impact of the students coming from the multi- family development on Auburn School District. What was set up was a staggered fee schedule and offered discounts between $2,000 and $10,000 depending on the number of bedrooms in a unit. The $10,000 fee discount was applicable for a studio unit. The full calculated impact fee applied to 4- and 5-bedrooms units. Th is year’s calculated impact fee is only $600 higher than last year’s discounted impact fee for one-bedroom units and about $7,400 less than last year’s full calculated fee for 4- and 5-bedroom units. The Auburn School District is asking that the multi-family impact fee be returned to a calculated impact fee based on the formula. Mr. Kenworthy stated that returning to the calculated fee results in an impact fee increase for the studios and one bedroom units and decreases for the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5- bedroom units. The Commission and staff discussed. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Kenworthy to confirm information on the schools that construction had taken place on and whether there was no new construction since the last time the school district and the Commission had met. In the packet it states 5 elementary schools were being replaced. Mr. Kenworthy confirmed that 1 middle school was replaced, 5 existing elementary schools have been replaced with new buildings and two additional elementary schools were added. The Commission ask for clarification on the impact fees and the reason for returning to the calculated formula that is not staggered based on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit. The school district is requesting for it to go back to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 5 the a uniform calculated formula because they cannot increase the fee above the calculated amount but can discount it to zero if they choose to. In the last year, the school district has received an influx of new students from the multi-family developments and needed to allow the fee to go up but at the same time it wasn’t equitable to charge a $16,000 impact fee on a studio apartment that was likely going to be occupied by one or two adults. Working with the City, the school district came up with staggered fee approach. The impact fee was based on l the calculated amount, but the school district offered discounts for the smaller sized units. The Commission asked what was happening as far as construction at the high school level. Ms. Blansfield responded that the school board will be meeting soon and considering next steps in future facility planning in the Auburn School District. The school district is growing rapidly, and the board will be looking at the capacity at the middle schools and high schools and discussing future construction for both. The Commission asked if the capacity was affected by the 19 portables that were moved to the middle and high schools. The Commission commented that with those portables that were moved to the middle schools, would that alleviate that need for building a new middle school. Ms. Blansfield stated that the middle schools are keeping “their heads above water” for the time being. The schools were built with higher capacities. Mr. Kenworthy added that 25 students can be accommodated in a portable classroom at the high school and middle school levels. Currently at the middle schools, the four middle schools combined there are 35 portables and at the 3 high schools there are 25 portables. This gives an idea of how the school district is accommodating all of overflow. With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:25 PM. With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated. Commissioner Stephens moved and Commissioner Moutzouris seconded to recommend P/T #1 - Capital Facilities Plan Update for Auburn School District be forwarded on to City Council for approval. Motion Passed 4-0 P/T #2 Dieringer School District Chair Roland opened the public hearing for P/T #2 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan Update on October 19, 2021, at 7:26 PM. Michael Farmer, Superintendent of the Dieringer School District spoke on behalf of the Dieringer School District. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 6 Mr. Farmer stated that pre Covid 19 Pandemic, the district commissioned a company to do a 10-year enrollment forecast and 10-year facilities plan for the district and started to do a high school feasibility study to determine if a new high school would be needed in the near future. The Dieringer School District is the biggest K-8 district in the state. Unfortunately, the pandemic hit, and the school district lost about 200 students. Mr. Farmer stated it had looked like there was a potential need for classroom space or an early learning center, but that has been put on hold as the district waits to see if the enrollment will recover. The Commission asked that as students finish up their 8th grade year, do they have the choice of going to Sumner or Auburn high school. Mr. Farmer commented that the Dieringer students can go to any district in the state. There are 550 high school aged students, approximately 225 at Sumner High School with a less amount attending Auburn Riverside High School, as well as a smaller amount at Bonney Lake High School. There is also about 40 kids that attend White River high school. The Commission asked if there was any construction currently taking place within the school district. Mr. Farmer stated that prior to the pandemic, there was growth expected about 10 years out but again that was pre pandemic. The School District hoped to acquire land that is next to Lake Tapps Elementary school and build an early learning center such as preschool, kindergarten, and 1st grade. But the district is still in the process of trying to acquire that land. The Dieringer School District provided the city with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2021 - 2027. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors in June 2021. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review, and a DNS prepared by the district. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Overview • An inventory of existing facilities • Six–year enrollment projections • Standard of service • Capacity projects • Finance plan • Impact fee calculations A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the district has calculated an increase in fees compared to those currently adopted. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $6,247, an increase of $2,071; and the fee for multiple family dwellings is $1,903, an increase of $1,114. However, as noted in an impact fee letter provided by the District, they are requesting to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 7 maintain impact fees consistent with those currently adopted (no increase). By ordinance No. 2018-88s, Pierce County Council has “capped” a “Maximum Fee Obligation” (MFO) which changes annually based on the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record. The previous year’s MFO for single family development was $3,890 and the MFO for multi-family development was $789. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action and have maintained consistency with the fee amount adopted by Pierce County. With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:31 PM. With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated. Commissioner Stephens moved and Commissioner Moutzouris seconded to recommend P/T #2 - Capital Facilities Plan for Dieringer School District be forwarded on to City Council for approval. Motion Passed 4-0 P/T #3 Federal Way Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan Chair Roland opened the public hearing for P/T #3 Federal Way Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan on October 19, 2021, at 7:32 PM. Ashley Murphy, Chief Financial Officer and Michael Swartz, Executive Director of Capital Projects spoke on behalf of the Federal Way Public School District. Mr. Swartz presented the Capital Facilities Plan Update to the Commission. The Federal Way School District has provided the city with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2022. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board June 29, 2021. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review, and a DNS prepared by the district. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Introduction • Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities • Needs forecast, existing & new facilities • Six–year finance plan • Maps of district boundaries • Building capacities & portable locations PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 8 • Student forecast • Capacity summaries • Student forecasts • Impact fee calculations • Summary of changes from the year 2021 plan A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the district is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $1,845, representing a decrease of $1,398 and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is $15,073, a decrease of $930. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. The Planning Commission asked how many schools are in the Auburn City limits. There is one elementary school located in the City. No plans for remodeling at this time. The Commission inquired if there will be anymore schools being built in the Auburn City limits in the future. Mr. Swartz commented that not at this time. With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:39 PM. The Commission and staff discussed. With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated. Vice Chair Lee moved, and Commissioner Stephens seconded to recommend P/T #3 - Capital Facilities Plan Update for Federal Way Public School District be forwarded on to City Council for approval. Motion Passed 4-0 P/T #4 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan Chair Roland opened the public hearing for P/T #4 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan on October 19, 2021, at 7:40 PM. David Bussard, Director of Capital Planning spoke on behalf of the Kent School District. P/T #4 – Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan Update The Kent School District provided its annually updated 2020-2021 to 2026- 2027 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2021 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the district. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 9 action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Executive Summary • Six-year enrollment projection & history • District standard of service • Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools • Six-year planning & construction plan • Portable classrooms • Projected classroom capacity • Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules • Summary of changes to previous plan A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the district is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,818.09, representing an increase of $125.24 and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is $2,457.53, an increase of $53.90. Both increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 2.2% for the Seattle Metropolitan Area in 2021. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. The Planning Commission inquired if there were any Kent Schools in the Auburn City limits. Mr. Bussard commented that there are currently no schools in the Auburn City limits. However, there are students from Kent that are in the Auburn School District which is why Kent School District participates in the Auburn Comp Plan Update. Mr. Bussard stated that Kent School growth has declined. Between 2016 and 2021, the district lost 2,800 students. Mr. Bussard commented that the district is aggressively trying to figure out where those students went but also realizing that the pandemic has also played a role in reducing those numbers. With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:51 PM. The Commission and staff discussed. With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated. Vice Chair Lee moved, and Commissioner Moutzouris seconded to recommend P/T #4 - Capital Facilities Plan Update for Kent School District be forwarded on to City Council for approval. Motion Passed 4-0 P/T #5 City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan Update PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 10 Chair Roland opened the public hearing for P/T #5 City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan Update on October 19, 2021, at 7:53 PM. Senior Planner Josh Steiner presented to the Planning Commission regarding the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan. P/T #5 – City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan Update A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. More specifically, RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA requires the following: “A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities. (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element.” A capital facility is defined as a structure, street, or utility system improvement, or other long- lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 11 The City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 is proposed to be incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (Volume No. 3). The Planning Commission asked if grants play into these projects. Does the City budget for these projects and then go seek out the grants or does the city look at grants and then set the budgets and then pre plan as to how many grants the city can expect to receive? City of Auburn Senior Traffic Engineer, James Webb commented that the city is familiar with the regular re-occurring grant opportunities and the city has a good idea of what types of projects we think that will be successful. When staff puts together the 6- year transportation improvement program (TIP) which feeds into the Capital Facilities Plan for transportation, staff identifies projects where they think we will be successful getting grants and anticipates receiving those grants. At times it is successful and other times it is not. But staff anticipates some grant funding over that 6-year period. The Commission inquired on how many of the projects are traffic mitigation programs. Is the City investing in traffic management. Staff confirmed that the city is indeed investing in traffic management. Staff commented that it may not be mentioned in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) because the CFP only includes the subset of all of the transportation plan projects in the 6- year transportation plan. Staff stated there are funds every year that is used to upgrade traffic cameras, and signal infrastructure. There is also individual Capital Projects that build out missing or old infrastructure. With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:59 PM. The Commission and staff discussed. With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated. Commissioner Stephens moved and Vice Chair Lee seconded to recommend P/T #5 - Capital Facilities Plan Update for the City of Auburn be forwarded on to City Council for approval. Motion Passed 4-0 Chair Roland opened the public hearing for P/T #6 Volume #3 Capital Facilities Plan, P/T #7 –Volume # 5, Transportation Element Plan Update, P/T #8 – Volume # 2, Housing Element Plan Update, P/T #9 – Volume #1, Land Use Element Plan Update, and City Initiated Map Amendments (CPA21-0002) CPM #1 on October 19, 2021, at 8:02 PM. Senior Planner Josh Steiner presented to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 12 P/T #6 – Volume # 3 Capital Facilities Element Plan Update • Water Services is requesting a 4-year extension of the Comprehensive Water Plan (CWP), which is scheduled to be updated in 2022, through the WA State Department of Health. • The 4-year extension would a llow for a full update in 2024 on same timeline as Periodic Update. • The current plan analysis period is through 2026. • Capital projects, water demand, and growth projections are still valid and accurate. • Element text remains the same. P/T #7 –Volume # 5, Transportation Element Plan Update • Update Comprehensive Plan to remove one project that is transferred to TIP and add the Main Street Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Projects. • Update Maps to reflect current conditions. The Commission asked how the traffic accident data is used in determining our policies and what improvements the city chooses to fund.. Senior Traffic Engineer, James Webb commented that we definitely look at the crash data to look for locations that we have higher than anticipated crash rates and the severity of those crashes. Staff puts together a Local Road Safety Plan every two years. This is used as a tool to identify locations that have risk factors that may be contributing to crashes. Staff uses this data to identify improvement projects and to use as a tool to seek grant funding for those projects. P/T #8 – Volume # 2, Housing Element Plan Update • Staff recommends starting to incorporate Housing Action Plan guidance into the Comprehensive Plan • Add language recognizing the preparation and adoption of the Housing Action Plan (HAP). • Using Recommendations from the HAP, one policy statement is proposed to be updated. • Updated Policy H-24 to reflect the HAP recommendation of minimizing displacement impacts, which is also consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2050, Policy (MPP-H-11) supporting identifying potential physical, economic, and cultural displacement and mitigating to the extent feasible. The Commission inquired on what “Cultural Displacement” was defined as, as it is referenced under the Housing Element Plan Update. Staff responded that it means any identity that is longer in a neighborhood; or losing some of the character of a physical place. The Commissioners commented that in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 13 communities, as residents age or move on, and new people come in that displacement seem s to be a natural process. The Commission and Staff discussed whether there was a specific example here in Auburn or, rather, was this policy something to lay groundwork for the future. Staff further commented that this policy is intended for the future. The Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year plan with a vision and its trying to lay the foundation for the future and how we plan for measures to avoid cultural displacement. The Commission asked if this would affect anything on city land that is on the Muckleshoot Indian reservation. Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon commented that he couldn’t recall a specific cultural displacement example appropriate to Auburn but did remind the Commission that when staff was reviewing the Housing Action Plan, the background report that was a part of that document had information on displacement susceptibility by income. More specifically, staff and the consultant presented back in February of 2021 to the Commission a map that viewed census data tracts in the city that could be most subject to displacement impacts. Planning Services Manager Dixon commented that there are historic Indian reservation boundaries that overlap into the city, but much of the land within these historic reservation boundaries is owned by non-tribal people and would be regulated by the city. P/T #9 – Volume #1, Land Use Element Plan Update • This policy supports a Recommendation in the HAP • Update Policy LU-39 to include affordable housing as an approved supplemental amenity that would allow bonuses in height, density, or intensity limitations. City Initiated Map Amendments (CPA21-0002) CPM #1 • Several maps found throughout Volume 5 (Transportation Element) have been updated to reflect current conditions, address formatting, and combine redundant maps. Chair Roland inquired about the label on the west side of the Green River being as “John Reddington Road NE”. She asked if this was a mistake. Senior Transportation Engineer, James Webb clarified that Green River Road was on the map on the east side. The label shown is associated with the levee on the west side. The Green River Road is not labeled on the east side of the river on the map s shown in the packet. Chair Roland asked if that was something that could be updated, and staff confirmed that it was an easy fix and would take care of that. With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 8:21 PM. The Commission and staff discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 14 With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated. Commissioner Moutzouris moved, and Commissioner Stephens seconded to recommend: P/T #6 – Volume # 3 Capital Facilities Element Plan Update P/T #7 –Volume # 5, Transportation Element Plan Update P/T #8 – Volume # 2, Housing Element Plan Update P/T #9 – Volume #1, Land Use Element Plan Update City Initiated Map Amendments Plan Update be forwarded on to City Council for approval. Motion Passed 4-0 IV. OTHER BUSINESS A. Presentation by Senior Traffic Engineer, James Webb on the City Traffic Impact Analysis. In the past, Planning Commission has expressed interest in knowing more about how the city evaluates traffic impacts of developments. As a result, staff has asked the City’s Transportation division to make a presentation. Senior Traffic Engineer, James Webb introduced himself and presented to the Commission. Mr. Webb explained that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is a study which assesses the adequacy of the planned transportation system to accommodate new vehicle trips generated by a proposed development, redevelopment, or land rezoning. These studies vary in range of detail and complexity depending on the type, size, and location of the development. Mr. Webb explained to the Commission when a traffic impact analysis is needed: • The development could potentially affect an intersection or corridor where an existing level of service is at or below standard. • The development generates more than 30 PM or AM peak hour trips on a corridor or intersection. • The development may potentially affect the implementation of the street system as outlines in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or of any other documented transportation project. • The development proposes a rezone of the subject property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 15 • The original Traffic Impact Analysis for a future development is outdated due to changes in traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed project or approved pipeline projects or a change in the proposed land use’s trip generation and/or distribution. • The development could potentially affect safety or requires an analysis to assist in designing appropriate access. The City has prescriptive elements required in TIAs, but then flexibility depending on project location and size, and considers the trigger(s) for the TIA to be required. He explained that the applicant's transportation consultant is required to work with City staff to determine the scope of the study. This scoping addresses:  Trip generation for the proposed land-uses  Time periods required to be evaluated (typically weekday AM and PM peaks when traffic volumes on the street system are highest)  Study intersections  Horizon year (when is the development anticipated to be complete and open)  Growth rate and pipeline projects  Signal timing and crash data  Planned projects identified in the City’s TIP Mr. Webb described the TIA Study Elements: 1. Document Existing Conditions within the study area (a TIA being prepared now would evaluate 2021 conditions). 1. Existing traffic volumes 2. Street system and intersection control 3. Non-motorized facilities 4. Crash history 5. Levels of service 6. Transit service 2. Identify “Background” Traffic (for the anticipated year of opening for the development project) 1. Estimates traffic volumes (includes background growth rate and traffic generated by approved development projects) 2. Identifies improvements to the transportation system anticipated to be completed 3. Evaluates levels of service without the proposed development 4. With project conditions 5. Estimates trip generation for the development including credit for existing uses which would be replaced (typically based on industry standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) (pass-by and internal trips) 6. Documents how these trips will be distributed and assigned to the street system (based on site access and existing travel patterns) 7. Evaluates levels of service with the proposed development 8. Will the project traffic impact non-motorized/transit/or safety? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 16 9. Analysis of parking demand and supply to show adequacy 3. Assess the Impacts – comparison of with project conditions to baseline conditions. 4. Determine Mitigation – to improve traffic operations to baseline conditions or better. Mr. Webb discussed the TIA requirements specific to rezone applications submitted to the city. Specific rezone requirements do not evaluate a specific development proposal, and instead evaluate the range of impacts of potential development allowed by the land uses of the proposed zoning change relative to existing zoning ., Rezone does no t always trigger mitigation, and a separate TIA could be required at the time of a subsequent development project. Staff displayed a graph and spoke about Level of Service or LOS. LOS is a performance measure of traffic operations by letter grade at an intersection or along a corridor that was established by the Highway Capacity Manual. The city has LOS standards adopted in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Generally, the city has adopted a LOS standard of “D” for arterial and collector roadways, signalized intersections, stop-controlled intersections and roundabouts. LOS “E” is acceptable at the intersection of two principal arterial streets (for example Auburn Way N with S 277th Street). LOS standards are established to balance between infrastructure needs and ease of mobility. Project impacts are determined against these standards. Higher LOS standards by letter grade are associated with a greater level of road improvements by the city or a developer. Mr. Webb explained the traffic impact fee is not mitigation for a project impact, but a fee assessed to all development projects based on proposed land uses. The fee is used by the city to fund capacity improvement projects identified in the transportation improvement program. TIA will identify an improvement to improve traffic operations to baseline conditions or better such as: • signal timing changes/phasing • Widening a roadway • Signalization of an intersection • Roundabout Specific Examples: • signal at S 287th Street and WVH (North Auburn Logistics warehouse project) • Widening and re-channelization on S 316th Street (Canyon Creek residential plat) • Kersey Way and 50th Street – re-channelization to create refuge/merge lane (Bowman Creek Elementary School) The Planning Commission commented that there are challenges in Auburn since our blocks are very short and results in a tremendous number of entrances or exits very near the intersection which in turn generates a large number of accidents. The Commission asked if that fits into this TIA analysis presented or is a more subjective measure. Staff commented that the circumstance cited really PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 17 fits into neither. It is something that is addressed by a different authority; the city’s public works engineering design standards. While staff doesn’t disagree with the Commission’s comments and concerns about driveways, for new developments there are standards that dictate how many access points they can have and where those driveways are placed. New development is subject to new standards that existing developments didn’t have to achieve. Mr. Webb concluded his presentation with future changes. Staff is developing multi-model level of service standards which will allow evaluation of impacts to non-motorized facilities (pedestrian and bike facilities) to be identified, how LOS is evaluated and what the standards will be revised and traffic impact fees will be revised to include non-motorized projects. Annual updates to the Transportation Improvement Program will take place as well, as updated traffic impact fees, based on the 2022-2027 TIP that go into effect on January 1, 2022, and upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update for 2024. V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon reported that The Max House building (formerly containing Nelson’s Jewelry) that was located on Main Street that was lost in a fire, now has demolition permits submitted for the teardown of the building. The application is not complete yet, and staff is waiting on the owner to respond. Once the demolition permit is issued Main Street will be closed for a week so the demolition crews can get access with machinery to complete the teardown. This will happen after the Veteran’s Day parade. The Commission asked about the strip commercial center that had contained Athens Pizza mand also had fire damage. Athens Pizza is in progress of being rebuilt with permits and inspections. Staff was not sure of an exact re-open date, but the owners are in process to complete the repairs that were caused by the fire. The Copper Gate project is working to get their final certificate of Occupancy (COO) for all of the units at the site in November. They are actively working on marketing the North undeveloped part of the Auburn Gateway site to be developed as commercial space. The developer will be developing a park that is a privately owned park but available for the public to use. It will consist of a stage and an lawn seating area for outdoor movies or small concerts, as well as space for picnic benches and small parking area for standing space for food trucks to visit. The Commission asked if Sound Transit was still considering various locations for the siting of an Electric bus Base station and if it included Auburn. Staff commented that the pandemic has delayed the project as of right now. The next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission Meeting would meet in November but at this time it looks as if the November and December meetings will not be needed. Emails will be sent out to confirm. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19 , 2021 Page 18 VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland adjourned the meeting at 9:11 PM.